(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가단17695

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가단17695

청구이의

Text

1. A notary public of the defendant's law firm on September 23, 2008, No. 694 delivered on September 23, 2008.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to maintain a de facto marriage relationship for raising two minor children, etc., and around that time, they shared a divorce.

B. On September 23, 2008, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note on March 1, 2009, the date of payment, March 1, 2009, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment (hereinafter “ Promissory Notes”). On the same day, a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to Pyeongtaek-si Law Firm.

Accordingly, as of September 23, 2008, the above law firm prepared a notarial deed of a bill to the effect that there is no objection even if the plaintiff is immediately subject to compulsory execution when the plaintiff delays the payment of the promissory note in this case to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”).

C. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant was issued an order to pay KRW 100 million against the Plaintiff as Suwon District Court No. 2016 tea3165.

On April 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) made the instant notarial deed as the title of execution; (b) executed compulsory execution against the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff under the Suwon District Court 2016No1987.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the promissory note of this case was issued to secure the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million provided by the Defendant on condition that the Plaintiff rears two minor children at the time of the merger of agreement, and thereafter, the Plaintiff shall not be subject to compulsory execution based on the promissory note of this case, since the Plaintiff faithfully raises two children until now, the Plaintiff shall not be subject to compulsory execution.

The above evidence and each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 13 (including numbers, if any) are stated alone.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.10.08 2015가단4339

-부산고등법원 2016.11.10 2015나56444

-창원지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가합53955

-서울서부지방법원 2011.12.27 2010가단43668

-수원지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단513704